Hunter v. Tamez, No. 09-11026

By FindLaw Staff on October 7, 2010 10:23 AM

Challenge to Denial of Sentencing Credit by Bureau of Prisons

In Hunter v. Tamez, No. 09-11026, a 28 U.S.C. section 2241 application challenging the decision of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to deny petitioner credit, through a nunc pro tunc order, against his federal sentence for time served in Texas state custody on unrelated state convictions, the court denied the application where 1) the BOP need not give effect to the state sentencing court's direction that petitioner's term of imprisonment on his state conviction run concurrently with his already-imposed term of imprisonment on his federal conviction; and 2) the BOP's order did not violate separation of powers.

As the court wrote: "Appellant Isaac Leigh Hunter, federal prisoner # 35789-180, appeals from the district court's denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Hunter filed his § 2241 application in an effort to challenge the decision of the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to deny him credit, through a nunc pro tunc order, against his federal sentence for time served in Texas state custody on unrelated state convictions. Specifically, Hunter argues that the BOP's denial of credit violates the United States Constitution in that the decision (1) violates principles of federalism by failing to give effect to the instruction of the state sentencing judge that Hunter serve his state sentence concurrently with his federal sentence, and (2) runs contrary to the separation of powers doctrine by allowing the executive branch of the federal government, rather than the judicial branch, to determine the length of his sentence."

Categories:

Tags:

About U.S. Fifth Circuit

U.S. Fifth Circuit features news and information from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which hears appeals from U.S. District Courts in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. This blog also features news that would be of interest to legal professionals practicing in the 5th Circuit.
Have a comment or tip? Write to us.